No surprises about the camera sensor, this fully correlates with my experience with 1Dx and some measurements done by other people - e.g. one French photographer specializing on astronomy - unfortunately do not remember his name. For indoor events like sports/shows/artist performances in low light 1Dx is probably the best camera ever from Canon - results are amazing - one part of that is sensor high ISO performance and the other is outstanding autofocus capabilities. It does easily what was almost impossible before. Few days ago I was shooting world stars ballet performance and results are stunning. Unfortunately cannot post any shots here - not allowed without special permission from the performance owners. But for high DR landscape photography it is definitely not the best tool - I posted some examples recently.Seems that from Canon for landscaper type of photography 1Ds is still the best one – one good reason to keep it until new big mpx camera from Canon will come to existence.

And again there is nothing wrong in DXO measurements.For those who are blaming DXO for numbers which they do not like I would recommend to calm down, learn some math and physics, tests methodologies and procedures and many other related things. Then digest all that , stop and try to think and understand what it is all about (I mean DXO measurements). And one more thing again - they do not measure overall cameras performance features wise, they just measuring sensor in the camera , nothing more to that.

For anyone wondering why they waited nearly a month after adding 1D X sensor support to DxO Optical Pro to release the 1D X scores, I'd guess it's because they knew there'd be a bit of buzz around these results, and they wanted to drive traffic to their sites now that DxO Optics Pro 8 has just been released. ....

I was wondering why they do not put their measurements after adding 1Dx support in ver .7.5.5. and this might be a good explanation ))) Usually after each new release of DXO they put measurements results on DxoMark for new supported cameras just few days later but with 1Dx we were waiting almost one month. I already upgraded both Phase One Capture 1 from ver. 6 to ver. 7 and DXO from 7.5.5 to 8 and already did some comparison tests for C1, LR4 and DXO 8 for 1Dx RAW files to see what is better for what. For low to average ISO - the best IQ is from C1, LR4 is the 2d and DXO on 3d – to my vision. For very high ISO – starting from 12800 to 51200 Dxo 8 is still having the same problems as before with low contrast smooth areas which becomes blotchy and "plastic" - almost the same as I demonstrated recently in other thread. So LR4 is still better in noise reductions than Dxo8. There are though some useful improvements in Dxo 8 - e.g. tone sliders which I suspect they simply borrowed from LR4 – exactly the same (Adobe might sue them for the same reasion as Apple is Suing Samsung))) . But color rendering is noticeably better for saturated colors, interface is better organized.

Less numbers, more real life performance. Will keep my 1DX tight and let the numbers go to hell. Been through over 10 bodies, Nikon, Canon you name it over all the years, this is by far the best performing body I put my fingers on.

han_solo82

And again there is nothing wrong in DXO measurements.For those who are blaming DXO for numbers which they do not like I would recommend to calm down, learn some math and physics, tests methodologies and procedures and many other related things. Then digest all that , stop and try to think and understand what it is all about (I mean DXO measurements). And one more thing again - they do not measure overall cameras performance features wise, they just measuring sensor in the camera , nothing more to that.

That's not true (and I study physics...), there is a huge problem with DXO measurements and it's there overall score and it's really easy to find out : Nikon D3200 is 13th and 5DIII is 14th (and there are a lot other exemple, this is just really obvious one). Now taking only sensor read noise this may be true, but taking the overall image quality this is certaintly false.

And again this it really easy to see if you dig deeper into their tests. 5DIII beats D3200 in every single tests they've made (screen or print) except DR below ISO400 (at which they are about egal and beyond that 5DIII is better by about a stop).

If they would based their scores on a average of SNR across a range of ISO, now that would be representative of a camera. But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.

So their system is a huge joke to me... At the very least if the want to gain credibility, they need to separate scores with different sensor size. But otherwise I like their specific tests!

And again there is nothing wrong in DXO measurements.For those who are blaming DXO for numbers which they do not like I would recommend to calm down, learn some math and physics, tests methodologies and procedures and many other related things. Then digest all that , stop and try to think and understand what it is all about (I mean DXO measurements). And one more thing again - they do not measure overall cameras performance features wise, they just measuring sensor in the camera , nothing more to that.

That's not true (and I study physics...), there is a huge problem with DXO measurements and it's there overall score and it's really easy to find out : Nikon D3200 is 13th and 5DIII is 14th (and there are a lot other exemple, this is just really obvious one). Now taking only sensor read noise this may be true, but taking the overall image quality this is certaintly false.

And again this it really easy to see if you dig deeper into their tests. 5DIII beats D3200 in every single tests they've made (screen or print) except DR below ISO400 (at which they are about egal and beyond that 5DIII is better by about a stop).

If they would based their scores on a average of SNR across a range of ISO, now that would be representative of a camera. But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.

So their system is a huge joke to me... At the very least if the want to gain credibility, they need to separate scores with different sensor size. But otherwise I like their specific tests!

We are talking about completely deferent things)))You are talking about SCORES and I was talking about MEASUREMENTS .Measurements results you can see on the DXO measurements curves and they give you 100% about sensor performance.The Scores are how they present overall measurement results - for this you need to do some summarization with different weight factors for each measurement result and for measurement curves you need to take integral with variable weight factor across the curve. And after that to sum all the integration results again with specific weight factor for each number. This weight factors are beyond the scope of measurements - they are just method of summarizing/presenting results and they are of course subjective depending of what is more important ( e.g. target of usage) .

And one more thing to add – to study physics and understand or even more- to feel it is a VERY BIG difference. I know a lot of folks who studied a lot of disciplines , they remember a lot of details, numbers but they do not “feel” them and do not see the “root” or “essence” of the things – as told in one very well known saying “Do not see the forest behind the trees”

But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.

This is a bit funny – you do very common mistake as many others - you are extrapolating your own world dimensions to the other worlds which is totally wrong methodologically.Basically what you are telling is - “ I do not need that so I assume that all other people do not need that either”. Big DOT. Here is the question – how do you know in your confined world what I need or other people need In this respect your judgment is no better than DXO Scores that you are blaming )))

And again there is nothing wrong in DXO measurements.For those who are blaming DXO for numbers which they do not like I would recommend to calm down, learn some math and physics, tests methodologies and procedures and many other related things. Then digest all that , stop and try to think and understand what it is all about (I mean DXO measurements). And one more thing again - they do not measure overall cameras performance features wise, they just measuring sensor in the camera , nothing more to that.

That's not true (and I study physics...), there is a huge problem with DXO measurements and it's there overall score and it's really easy to find out : Nikon D3200 is 13th and 5DIII is 14th (and there are a lot other exemple, this is just really obvious one). Now taking only sensor read noise this may be true, but taking the overall image quality this is certaintly false.

And again this it really easy to see if you dig deeper into their tests. 5DIII beats D3200 in every single tests they've made (screen or print) except DR below ISO400 (at which they are about egal and beyond that 5DIII is better by about a stop).

If they would based their scores on a average of SNR across a range of ISO, now that would be representative of a camera. But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.

So their system is a huge joke to me... At the very least if the want to gain credibility, they need to separate scores with different sensor size. But otherwise I like their specific tests!

We are talking about completely deferent things)))You are talking about SCORES and I was talking about MEASUREMENTS .Measurements results you can see on the DXO measurements curves and they give you 100% about sensor performance.The Scores are how they present overall measurement results - for this you need to do some summarization with different weight factors for each measurement result and for measurement curves you need to take integral with variable weight factor across the curve. And after that to sum all the integration results again with specific weight factor for each number. This weight factors are beyond the scope of measurements - they are just method of summarizing/presenting results and they are of course subjective depending of what is more important ( e.g. target of usage) .

And one more thing to add – to study physics and understand or even more- to feel it is a VERY BIG difference. I know a lot of folks who studied a lot of disciplines , they remember a lot of details, numbers but they do not “feel” them and do not see the “root” or “essence” of the things – as told in one very well known saying “Do not see the forest behind the trees”

Well that's exactly the problem my friend, their score system isn't about the whole picture of the sensor, but that's what gets advertised. But hey, they say it themselves : "DxOMark is the trusted industry standard for camera and lens independent image quality measurements and ratings". So we should trust their ratings!

You call yourself a lab, then give me QE vs wavelength as standard, read noise and Full capacity well at different ISO, and SNR at different illumination and ISO and stop advertising camera's sensor with a meaningless score... Well maybe that's just me and my physics anyway...

But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.

This is a bit funny – you do very common mistake as many others - you are extrapolating your own world dimensions to the other worlds which is totally wrong methodologically.Basically what you are telling is - “ I do not need that so I assume that all other people do not need that either”. Big DOT. Here is the question – how do you know in your confined world what I need or other people need In this respect your judgment is no better than DXO Scores that you are blaming )))

It's funny maybe because that was my point! DXO makes a huge effort to take all those measurement, making it readable to most, and then deliberately throw most of it to the garbage to produce a pure meaningless score. That makes no sense! That's why I specifically said that they should do an average of all their measurements across all ISO to includes every type of shooters that exist, not just a minority of them... I've never said to exlude something because I don't use it. I said include everything! That's the science of a sensor...

But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.

This is a bit funny – you do very common mistake as many others - you are extrapolating your own world dimensions to the other worlds which is totally wrong methodologically.Basically what you are telling is - “ I do not need that so I assume that all other people do not need that either”. Big DOT. Here is the question – how do you know in your confined world what I need or other people need In this respect your judgment is no better than DXO Scores that you are blaming )))

It's funny maybe because that was my point! DXO makes a huge effort to take all those measurement, making it readable to most, and then deliberately throw most of it to the garbage to produce a pure meaningless score. That makes no sense! That's why I specifically said that they should do an average of all their measurements across all ISO to includes every type of shooters that exist, not just a minority of them... I've never said to exlude something because I don't use it. I said include everything! That's the science of a sensor...

This is really a funny human nature. There were so many cheers about 1DX being the best camera when the rumor DXO score was posted. Now the real score is being questioned when it is low.

But their score is about DR at ISO 100, and I'm sorry, but 99.99% of my images don't need to be pushed 3+ stops and my camera is not always stuck at ISO 100 so this is irrevelent to 99.99% of user.

This is a bit funny – you do very common mistake as many others - you are extrapolating your own world dimensions to the other worlds which is totally wrong methodologically.Basically what you are telling is - “ I do not need that so I assume that all other people do not need that either”. Big DOT. Here is the question – how do you know in your confined world what I need or other people need In this respect your judgment is no better than DXO Scores that you are blaming )))

It's funny maybe because that was my point! DXO makes a huge effort to take all those measurement, making it readable to most, and then deliberately throw most of it to the garbage to produce a pure meaningless score. That makes no sense! That's why I specifically said that they should do an average of all their measurements across all ISO to includes every type of shooters that exist, not just a minority of them... I've never said to exlude something because I don't use it. I said include everything! That's the science of a sensor...

This is really a funny human nature. There were so many cheers about 1DX being the best camera when the rumor DXO score was posted. Now the real score is being questioned when it is low.

Please, reread my 1st post : "there is a huge problem with DXO measurements and it's there overall score and it's really easy to find out : Nikon D3200 is 13th and 5DIII is 14th (and there are a lot other exemple, this is just really obvious one)"

I've never even mention 1DX. DXO score problem have been there since the beginning and evident on lots and lots and lots of comparison between different cameras...